On (2014-12-07 09:24 +1300), Pete Mundy wrote:
Hey,
I've done loads of 1Gbit testing using the entry-level MacBook Air and a
Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adapter though, and I disagree with Saku's
statement of 'You cannot use UDPSocket like iperf does, it just does not
work, you are lucky
I find nuttcp very useful in those situations.
Be sure to use one of the recent betas, I have been using 7.2.1 for UDP
with excellent results (decent loss stats and jitter calc)
http://nuttcp.net/nuttcp/beta/nuttcp-7.2.1.c
As I understand it, it's still developed, 7.3.2 is now out.
M
On 7 Dec
On 06/12/2014 20:24, Pete Mundy wrote:
I've done loads of 1Gbit testing using the entry-level MacBook Air and a
Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adapter though, and I disagree with Saku's
statement of 'You cannot use UDPSocket like iperf does, it just does not
work, you are lucky if you reliably
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 02:19:46 -1000
From: t...@lavanauts.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: possible twtelecom routing issue
Trying to gather information on a connectivity issue between TW Telecom
and a specific government web server. If one of your upstream providers
is TW Telecom,
Is anyone else seeming issues reaching Amazon through Zayo in Chicago?
8 37 ms 44 ms 27 ms 64.125.204.11.allocated.above.net [64.125.204.11]
9 28 ms 13 ms 44 ms ge-11-1-2.mpr2.ord6.us.above.net [64.125.172.81]
10 28 ms 46 ms 27 ms ae11.cr2.ord2.us.above.net [64.125.22.130]
11 95 ms 34 ms 41
I retract my statement.
*sigh*
First post in many many years and I'm a putz...
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net
To: North American Network Operators' Group nanog@nanog.org
From: p...@fiberphone.co.nz
Subject: Re: 10Gb iPerf kit?
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:24:41 +1300
To: nanog@nanog.org
On 11/11/2014, at 1:35 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote:
I have not tried doing that myself, but the only thing that would even be
possible that I know of
All,
Could someone from Google public DNS and from GoDaddy contact me off-list?
I'm getting SERVFAIL when trying to resolve any record in any domain
whose NSs are
pdns01.domaincontrol.com/pdns02.domaincontrol.com/pdns05.domaincontrol.com/pdns06.domaincontrol.com
(GoDaddy premium DNS), only
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 12:01:40PM -0500,
Erik Levinson erik.levin...@uberflip.com wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
I'm getting SERVFAIL when trying to resolve any record in any domain
whose NSs are
Agree on blendive.com and blendedperspectives.com
Not sure how to identify which chunk of google is failing, but here's a trace
for a nonworking query on the above domains:
5. 209.85.241.127
6. google-public-dns-a.google.com
(thru TorIX thus the short path).
EC2 east is
On 07/12/14 12:19 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Since Google Public DNS validates, and Go Daddy supports DNSSEC, it
would be useful to test with dig +cd (Checking Disabled) to determine
if it is a DNSSEC problem or not.
Tried, still SERVFAIL. I succeeds with +trace though...
You can look
Interesting traceroute from Comcast in Chicago:
Goes from Chicago to Seattle to New York inside the Comcast network.
Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.
traceroute to www.amazon.com (176.32.98.166), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets using UDP
1 lancomcast.lcrcomputer.com (192.168.250.252)
Maybe a geo-specific issue then, which is even more weird, because it's
still not working for me from two different ASs, though both in Toronto,
and a traceroute makes it appear like they're not hitting the same nodes
(but maybe they are).
What's even more weird is I can actually resolve
it just started working properly I think. yes, tested from 6 even and odd ips
on 3 different AS's (that all go through Torix though).
/kc
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 03:51:16PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl said:
Maybe a geo-specific issue then, which is even more weird, because it's
still not
Nope, it's just super intermittent now...it resolved once and cached it
apparently, but still SERVFAIL most of the time if you try repeatedly...
Try uberflip.net too.
On 07/12/14 12:58 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
it just started working properly I think. yes, tested from 6 even and odd ips
on 3
Just failed for me, too. Traceroute suggests I'm testing against Google in
Chicago.
1027 ms24 ms24 ms ae5.cr1.ord2.us.above.net [64.125.30.89]
1129 ms49 ms25 ms ae4.er1.ord7.us.above.net [64.125.28.50]
1230 ms25 ms25 ms 72.14.217.53
1334 ms32 ms
Heh...when it succeeds for me sometimes now, if I do it repeatedly, I
can see two different TTL sets each time, so I know I'm hitting at least
two nodes / sets of nodes...
One of my traceroutes from 151 Front suggests the node is in the
building, as the latency is well under 1ms.
On
Have anyone tried any DDoS attack mitigation appliance rather than Arbor
PeakFlow TMS? I need it to be carrier-grade in terms of capacity and
redundancy, and as far as I know, Arbor is the only product in the
market which offers a clean pipe volume of traffic, so if the DDoS
attack volume
Hi,
A lot of new vendors have entered the DDoS attack prevention market other than
Arbor, I've seen carrier grade devices made by Huawei, NSFocus, RioRey and many
others.
If you're looking at something software based, I've used Andrisoft WanGuard and
would recommend it.
Ammar.
On 8 Dec
I've heard good things about the A10 Networks appliances. I have not used them
personally, but do use their ADC appliances and they do work well.
Jordan Medlen
Network Engineer
Bisk Education
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 7, 2014, at 15:12, Mohamed Kamal mka...@noor.net wrote:
Have anyone
On 12/5/2014 07:06, Rob Seastrom wrote:
At $DAYJOB, we have some applications that we would like to be all
hipster and *actually check* for certificate revocation. I know this
is way out there in terms of trendiness and may offend some folks.
Difficulty: the clients are running on single
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 02:24:33PM -0500, Jim Popovitch said:
FWIW, in the past GoDaddy has periodically blocked queries from Google
Public DNS infrastructure. Heavily discussed and documented here:
On Dec 7, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Mohamed Kamal
mka...@noor.net wrote:
so if the DDoS attack volume is, for example, 1Tbps, they will grant you
for example 50Gbps of clean traffic.
Please feel free to contact me off-list if I can assist, as it seems you've
been provided with incorrect information.
There have been 28 response to the survey I put out last week.
The key numbers are:
We have read and will not sign the agreement 10 36%
We are considering signing the agreement 1 4%
We haven't yet read it 5 18%
and
Our legal staff has reviewed and rejected the agreement. 7 25%
We
And there in lies my interest in all of this- there is little value in
signing my org's routes if no one is going to validate them. It's a bit of
an odd position in that I have a very high interest in what the rest of the
community thinks of and how they act with respect to the RPA. In other
What have you found so far?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roy Hirst rhi...@xkl.com wrote:
Replying offline to Theo. Schwer zu finden.
Roy
*Roy Hirst* | 425-556-5773 | 425-324-0941 cell
XKL LLC | 12020 113th Ave NE, Suite 100 | Kirkland, WA 98034 | USA
On 12/4/2014 5:21 AM, Theo Voss
On Dec 7, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
And there in lies my interest in all of this- there is little value in
signing my org's routes if no one is going to validate them. It's a bit of
an odd position in that I have a very high interest in what the rest of the
community
One could easily presume the ARIN region RPKI deployment statistics
are lower as a result of the RPA situation (and no doubt that it part
of the issue), but as noted earlier, it's unlikely to be the full
story since we also have a region (APNIC) where RPKI deployment also
rather low that and
28 matches
Mail list logo
